Miligo just posted a long and thoughtful comment to my post on Powerpoint. I like how old discussions can reappear on the front page again when someone happens to comment on an old post. I like my prominent display of new comments.

So, to respond to Miligo, I went and found two examples of computer-designed, projected slides used in presentations: Stuart Moulthrop’s DAC 01 keynote and Mark Bernstein’s talk from Hypertext 01. They have daring and well-formulated ideas and visions, and they speak engagingly with warmth and gusto. Stuart and Mark are both amazing public speakers. They tend to have stunning slides, with evocative phrases and visual excitement. I love being swept up in the glow the flow of their presentations.

Neither Stuart nor Mark has made their slides in Powerpoint. I think they use Flash and Quicktime. But they’re slides, done on computers, projected on a screen. Perhaps the default templates of Powerpoint are bad news, but you don’t have to use them.

Mark and Stuart’s slides are available on the web but are hard to grasp, I suspect, without at least a memory of the words and the actions they were intended to be performed with. In that sense they are, indeed, ephemeral. But I don’t think they should be deleted.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

AI STORIES

AI-generated stories have longer endings than human stories

My colleague Jessica Witte has just shared a preprint where she compared the emotional arcs of the stories we generated using gpt-4o-mini to those of human-authored (pre-2022) stories from the subreddit r/WritingPrompts, conveniently gathered in this dataset. She found a distinct difference in the endings of the LLM-generated stories: both […]

How to peer review a paper in 2026

Dorothy Bishop, a psychologist, wrote a useful list of what reviewers need to look out now that so many papers are bad science that looks good thanks to LLMs. Read her whole blog post, she explains it well, but here’s a brief version because I’m pretty sure we’ll be needing […]

“So what if it was ChatGPT? It *could* have been true!”

I recently read a good article on the different kinds of truth a language model operates with by Luke Mann, Liam Magee and Vanicka Arora, Truth Machines: Synthesizing Veracity in AI Language Models, but despite its lovely typology of truths (consensus, correspondence, coherence and pragmatic) it doesn’t help me with […]

AI STORIES

AI shimmer and sparkle

I have this hunch that sparkles and glow and shimmer are somehow a point in the latent spaces of LLMs that have more connections than you would expect. Perhaps their connotation to magic and to the unknown matches some of the mystique of genAI? Or perhaps these words are used […]

Don’t do a systematic review if you’re in the humanities

This paper is a great example of why you probably shouldn’t use a systematic literature review for a theoretical and conceptual research question like “How does artificial intelligence affect the perception of authenticity and aura in art?” However, if you’re looking for an annotated list of 48 recent articles about […]